Sick 10:10 advert

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Transhumanists would tend to point out that there is nothing privileged about biological systems. A cyborg or robot wouldn't have to be unable to adapt. Even without nano-tech they have the advantage of being able to swap out parts when the environment changes.

Originally posted by 753
No technology that actually exists or can be foressen today would allow that.

Really? Because my car can do that. So can desktop computers.

In fact I just made use of a similar bit of technology known as the sweat shirt, it took me just a few seconds to adapt to a drop in environmental temperatures. Lets see biology do that.

Originally posted by 753
As for nanotechs, they are overhyped and what people dream of them doing is just imitating what natural complex organic molecules like enzymes can. A living cell could be seen as an ultracomplex system arising from the acoplation of several nanomachines, in this sense if we ever make cell-like systems out of artifical molecules - nanomachines - that can perform the self-manufactoring, adaptative, self-preserving and reproductive functions of a natural cell, then it would simply be an artificial lifeform and not a machine at all - if it can mutate on its own, then it would also fall almost immediatelly outside our controlling capacities like natural life does. I remain skeptical of our capacity to ever engineer this however, and specially skeptical fo it being based on of anything but carbon.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree that the idea of living nano-tech "goo" is a bit silly (at least within the forseeable future). That doesn't mean there aren't great improvements we can make by taking advantage of abiotic systems.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? Because my car can do that. So can desktop computers.

In fact I just made use of a similar bit of technology known as the sweat shirt, it took me just a few seconds to adapt to a drop in environmental temperatures. Lets see biology do that.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree that the idea of living nano-tech "goo" is a bit silly (at least within the forseeable future). That doesn't mean there aren't great improvements we can make by taking advantage of abiotic systems.

Never said there aren't.

If you read the discussion from the begining, you'll see the point of contention is whether or not becoming 'cyborgs' or uploading into machines etc. can increase our life expectancy as a species or even allow us to outlive the rest of the life on the planet. The point here is comparing natural living systems to cyborgs and tech when it comes to ensuring long term survival of a lineage in an environment in constant flux and I find it absurd that we'll ever come up with any tech that does a better job at it than living organisms and biological evolution. Other than that, tech refinement can certainly improve the quality of life of individuals and populations.

Originally posted by 753
I clearly meant adapt with the level of sophistication that living organisms are capable of. Even a thermostat can regulate room temperature in response to relatively subtle changes in it, but that ain't quite the homeostasis though, is it? It doesn't come close to what the simplest archeobacteria can do.

They got a 3.5 billion year head start on us 😐

Originally posted by 753
If you read the discussion from the begining, you'll see the point of contention is whether or not becoming 'cyborgs' or uploading into machines etc. can increase our life expectancy as a species or even allow us to outlive the rest of the life on the planet. The point here is comparing natural living systems to cyborgs and tech when it comes to ensuring long term survival of a lineage in an environment in constant flux and I find it absurd that we'll ever come up with any tech that does a better job at it than living organisms and biological evolution. Other than that, tech refinement can certainly improve the quality of life of individuals and populations.

I disagree.

Evolution may be tried and true but it's also painfully slow and full of inefficiency. Humans didn't wait to evolve longer legs, they tamed horses and built cars. Intelligently directed adaptation is clearly better than evolution.

Just consider that no single species lives in as many different environments as humans do (at least to my knowledge). That isn't because our biological systems are so well developed it's because we built appropriate technology.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They got a 3.5 billion year head start on us 😐

I disagree.

Evolution may be tried and true but it's also painfully slow and full of inefficiency. Humans didn't wait to evolve longer legs, they tamed horses and built cars. Intelligently directed adaptation is clearly better than evolution.

Just consider that no single species lives in as many different environments as humans do (at least to my knowledge). That isn't because our biological systems are so well developed it's because we built appropriate technology.

Hum... the truly dominant lifeforms, as far as habitat colonization goes, are bacteria and fungi. As a group they dominate every single habitat on earth and even individual lineages like cyanobacteria are more widespread than us. After them, come the insects. A lot of other species like mice and roaches also manage to survive in any habitat we do and many others, they just needed our help getting to some of their current territories.

I get your point and it's not that antagonistic to mine, considering our intelligence and behavioral adaptabilty are biological functions produced by evolution. It's undeniable that our capacity to adjust our behavior to new situations, use tools, come up with solutions to problems and manipulate our environments have allowed us to expand our niche as a species. We can survive in pretty extreme habitats, because we solved the problems of getting food, water and shelter in them - we colonized them thousands of years ago through some pretty low-tech but really effective ways. But just think how smart evolution made us, I can't see us making something as smart as we are. Ever.

The random generation of a huge variety of incredibly plastic and 'smart' (cells are smart for this definition) systems offers a richer, almost infinite (though not in the same species, of course) pool of possible solutions to survival problems and environmental change than the directed application of our tech and limited knowledge in solving the problems and menaces we become aware of.

I recall this experiment in which computer scientists tested 3 ways of creating codes that could 'shield themselves' against codes that ordered their deletion. The deleting codes would change all the time to simulate the environment. One system was a simulation of evolution, random codes were generated and put to the test againt the deleting codes. The others were people and softwares trying to figure out what was going on and deliberately write the codes that would survive the longest. The random generator won. I'll try to find this article and post it here

Smart as we are, we're still too dumb compared to the blind watchmaker

Originally posted by 753
If you want to reach a particular objective or convenience like faster travel, then sure, directed aplication of knowledge is faster and more efficient than sitting arround waiting for mutations to pile up. If the goal is simply surviving as a lineage for the longest time possible then evolution really can't be beaten.

Ah, but the goal isn't "survive for the longest time possible" it's "survive this particular problem facing me", just the same as for evolution.

Originally posted by 753
Hum... the truly dominant lifeforms, as far as habitat colonization goes, are microorganisms. As a group they dominate every single habitat on earth and even individual lineages like cyanobacteria are more widespread than us.

But we're just one species. That's a bit more impressive than a whole domain.

Originally posted by 753
But still, the mechanim of evolution remains supreme in my view. The random generation of a huge variety of incredibly plastic and 'smart' systems offers a richer (almost infinite, though not in the same species, of course) pool of possible solutions to survival problems and environmental change than the directed application of our tech and limited knowledge in solving the problems and menaces we become aware of.

Evolution will just try everything given enough time. In the end all creatures (and indeed most nonliving systems) are subject to the rule that whatever survives, survives. It's sort of tautological.

Originally posted by 753
I recall this experiment in which computer scientists tested 3 ways of creating codes that could 'shield themselves' against codes that ordered their deletion. The deleting codes would change all the time to simulate the environment. One system was a simulation of evolution, random codes were generated and put to the test againt the deleting codes. The others were people and softwares trying to figure out what was going on and deliberately write the codes that would survive the longest. The random generator won. I'll try to find this article and post it here

Sounds interesting. I don't get how random bits of code managed to do anything, though.

Of course this also sort of supports the transhumanist argument. A purpose built factory could try dozens of substantially different variations on a theme every day. Human staff could even analyze what caused the previous day's versions to fail.

Obviously such a factory is a tall order to build, fund and program but I see nothing about it that is particularly impossible. It relies on the principles of evolution, yes, but still seems like an improvement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah, but the goal isn't "survive for the longest time possible" it's "survive this particular problem facing me", just the same as for evolution.

But we're just one species. That's a bit more impressive than a whole domain.

Evolution will just try everything given enough time. In the end all creatures (and indeed most nonliving systems) are subject to the rule that whatever survives, survives. It's sort of tautological.

Sounds interesting. I don't get how random bits of code managed to do anything, though.

Of course this also sort of supports the transhumanist argument. A purpose built factory could try dozens of substantially different variations on a theme every day. Human staff could even analyze what caused the previous day's versions to fail.

Obviously such a factory is a tall order to build, fund and program but I see nothing about it that is particularly impossible. It relies on the principles of evolution, yes, but still seems like an improvement.